To make want to be parents take an exam...

[ShakeRattleNRoll]

.. to make sure they are fit to look after and bring up children? It seems like there are so many parents out there who don't even know how to look after themselves let alone children. What does everybody think about this? I'm not exactly sure but I think it is worth discussing and it annoys me that people just have babies willy nilly without much thought/money and trying to bring them up in such a difficult world of today.

absolutely Hopalongon well said

Had I been assessed before becoming pregnant, I would probably not have been allowed a child, I imagine.
But having had my child, I have learnt, and am still learning as my child grows, and have become a good parent. Having children can change a person, for the better.

Therefore, any assessment before pregnancy becomes irrelevant to what kind of parent you may become.

You would think that a doctor and a headmistress would make great parents wouldn't you? Trust me, definitely not the case. So no, I don't agree with the initial premise.

That sounds like a better plan, forever: however, it would need far, far stricter training and ongoing monitoring of HVs. Too many Mumsnetters have tales of clueless HVs with outdated ideas or even downright dangerous advice.

I would also like to put in a word for better training about medical conditions that mimic child abuse and how to tell the difference. And training about how to chase infiormation up. Daniel Pelka's life would have been saved if somebody had looked a bit more closely into his supposed medical condition. But from what I gather his mother was a persuasive talker. Rather like me, then.

I think every child a wanted child would be a good start.

The already assess the infertile before letting them access fertility treatment. You have to fill out forms about criminal background and social services involvement before you can do so. It's not exactly an exam but it's enough to make you feel extra-shit about being barren. It's a hoop that the fertile do not have to jump through.

*They

Sorry OP but you're not just being unreasonable, you're being thoughtless and short sighted. As are many of those who agree with you.

There are so many horrendous repercussions to this idea that many aren't considering. Certainly agree with the poster who mentioned dystopian futures...

It's a brilliant idea. You can't adopt a child or even a dog without jumping through hoops but any idiot can have a child. Logistically difficult though - you'd have to find away of temporarily sterilising the whole population.

[AKAK81] I have heard someone propose universal sterilisation at puberty, egg/sperm stored until proof of suitability as a parent could be proved. Now, in what sort of world could that exist?

'provided', not 'proved'.

Exam a terrible idea but I wouldn't be against something more like a course or class with mandatory attendance. Like the speed awareness course for drivers! When preggers with ds I was offered free parenting classes ahead if his birth and I thought there may be actual parenting tips but no, it was all about labour. Which yes, was a big deal, but essentially one day versus years ahead as a parent.

I think rather than an exam, parents should be taught to do good parenting - there isn't a point where a rule book plops out yer fanjo straight after giving birth.

Problem is you cannot enforce all parents to go on a course

I propose that Child benefit should only be given on the understanding that parents attend parenting classes.

Some bad parenting is through ignorance, and some is a cultural thing. a good example of changing predominant culture is the lunchbox thing.

I don't agree with all the lunchbox monitoring and the hysteria over a kitkat, however it is a great example of how a national culture can be for the most part changed.

So if the predominant messages to all parents are the same culture can change.

I would have probably passed the exam before having children, TBH. Doesn't mean that I am a super parent now- far from it. I just had no clue, before having children. I would have opted to BF, for example, although in reality I struggled so much that I moved on to FF pretty quickly. I would also have ticked the box to say I was very patient, because in my nicely ordered, adult environment of the pre-baby years that was exactly my temperament. I simply did not appreciate how snappy I would feel after surviving on severely reduced sleep and coping with the random whims of a tantrumming toddler! So the exam would not have been any indicator of my parenting ability. It is not something you can deduce until you are actually a parent.

Sure. The test should have one question: "Are you the kind of judgemental arse who thinks you are more entitled to have a family than poor people?" and if you answer yes, you are forcibly sterilised. Sounds great, eh? Not at all an opportunity for ideological manipulation.

Are you also aware that abusive parents can sometimes lie about what they do, or plan to do? How's a test going to help with that? Perhaps you should propose a full lie detector session and locking everyone in a room for the first 3 years with their child under 24h observations?

unworkable. I thought I would be a brilliant parent, wanted my baby so so much knew all the stuff so would no doubt have passes a test with flying colours. There are times I have been a crap mum to use another posters analogy you can pass a driving test but doesn't stop you having an accident / causing one. better to bring in better PSHE in schools which looks at parenting and lets pupils talk to young mums and see first hand how difficult it is, better education about respectful relationships, prparing for parenthood and preventing it. THIS is where we are lacking IMO

Fudgeface has just expressed in clear, uncompromising language what I have been pussy-footing about.

One thing I do think worked well for my generation abroad was compulsory classes on child development in Year 9.

Nothing to do with assessing our own likelihood of making good parents, simply part of our general learning about the world. As something at least as important as understanding the causes of WW1 or the functioning of a capitalist economy. We learned all sorts of things about the cognitive development of small babies, common behaviours in 2yos, ways of dealing with pre-school stubbornness.

I often read threads on MN where parents are surprised that a 2yo does not understand why he is being punished for something he did last week or worried because a 4yo has an imaginary friend. All that was part of our lessons when we were 14.

Ok. I'm currently SAHM, grown up, middle class,
Here are two adorable, well nourished, well attached little children right here at my knee playing with their sustainably sourced, handcrafted toys.

10 years ago I was full time working mum of two in an abusive marriage. I was on antidepressants.

10 years before that I was a teenaged mum to one child. Single. Baby on my back while we went to festivals, travelled Europe and America.

I have 4 happy, successful children.

Which of these women would you like to see sterilised?

We don't need exams. We need a better funded, staffed and trained social services and social care system for children.

We also need to get away from the idea it's better for children to stay with violent, drug addicted or alcoholic families because it's better than the care system.

The way to do that is to build a better care system so it's not failing the children in it so badly that they're better off with shit parents.

You can't stop people having kids if they fail an exam, just the practical applications of it would be mad anyway.

What some countries do though is pay people who are considered asocial (drug users, recovering addicts etc) for receiving monthly contraceptive jabs. This encourages people who don't want kids to avoid having them but has no negative effects on their long term fertility if they get their life together and want a family.

Not sure whether it happens in the UK or whether it's ethically ambiguous (there's the question of whether people would think they couldn't afford to stop having the jabs, although in that case they'd probably be unable to afford to have children...) but it seems to be a better option than setting a parenting exam

Agree eurochick infertile people shouldn't have to prove their worth, since fertile people aren't required to.

I think more people like us should have children.

I think fewer people like them should have children.

All we need to do is decide who "us" and "them" are, but it's pretty obvious, right?

My DCs are 27 and 21. Every time one of them asks me to bung them £100, or comes home steaming, or comes home to live for a bit because he's fallen out with the girlfriend, or leaves heaps of stinking rugby kit about the place, I realise that I've failed the parenting exam.

Or is that not what you meant? Do you mean that I get to pass the exam with a gold star because one of them went to a top independent school on a scholarship and is now a trainee stockbroker while the other has Grade 8 saxophone and a job at the golf club?

Do only university educated middle-class professionals pass this thankfully imaginary exam? Because where does that leave my super qualified, successful SiL who left her DD1 to CIO from birth in order to get her onto a 4 hour schedule, to the point where she was back in hospital after a fortnight with failure to thrive? Who left her DD1 upstairs all alone during the day and downstairs all alone during the night so that she didn't disturb my super qualified, successful BiL's sleep? And no she didn't have PND, she just, like, failed the parenting exam.

This is one of those areas (population control/child poverty/child cruelty/abuse - not parenting exams), for me, that sits in the back of my mind under the category of "something needs to be done about this type of thing but bugger me if I know what it is".

just waiting for my results, its been 23 years ,he could still turn out to be a serial killer in a few years though so when do I graduate?